Skip to main content
2:00 pm
2:01 pm
2:02 pm
2:03 pm
2:04 pm
2:05 pm
2:06 pm
2:07 pm
2:08 pm
2:09 pm
2:10 pm
2:11 pm
2:12 pm
2:13 pm
2:14 pm
2:15 pm
2:16 pm
2:17 pm
2:18 pm
planning commission regular hearing for march 14, 2013. we do not allow any out burst and please turn off any mobile phones. we left off -- planning code section 604, signs shall not be treated as a new sign. >> the item before you is an ordinance proposed by supervisor chu that would amend 604 of the planning code so it would no longer require a new sign. currently it requires a sign permit and to the current codes of the planning codes. if it's not conforming it would
2:19 pm
have to be renewed. a mere change in copy would no longer be considered a new sign, however change in new copy will still require a permit. stuff is recommending approval with modifications to the proposed ordinance. while the department does realize how we comply, we also believe it could be interpreted too broadly. that it be changed or would require new change. also add in the exception for a change of copy from one sign type to another for example
2:20 pm
change an identifying sign to a business sign. these i forwarded to you last week. the department has received comments. the department is seeking approval with modifications with how we treat non-compliant signs and helps preserve the in nature of the character and integrity of buildings and would remove unnecessary burdens on business owners and accommodate new tenants. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> okay. opening it for public
2:21 pm
comment. former commissioner rob miguel. trisha, alex walker. >> commissioners, ron miguel, first i would like to welcome to the grandparents club. you will enjoy it as i have for the last 34 years and you will be a proud member. as to the item before you; i like it. i understand the changes as to size, structure and lighting. i was a retail merchant in the neighborhood commercial area of san francisco, for over 25 years, and involved with the association for over 40 years. i have seen everything from the anglo california national bank to go out. i have seen changes in funeral parlors where many
2:22 pm
have gone out of business and merged with others and many changes to names. my personal example, my family had a flower shop since 1989 and i sold it to someone with another name, all of her business cards, all of her labels says flowers. hers is difference. that sign was made in the 40s and not conforming. she can't change that sign without totally taking it down which is expensive and putting up a
2:23 pm
total new one plus it has the 40s design on it. it's a little outdated now. she can't even change it now. it's a practical situation in many instances. i can go to any neighborhood in commercial district in san francisco and show you instance after instance and in fact you will find a sign permitted by the department with one name and lettering on an you auning with a newer name . i urge you to go with this one. >> thank you, my name is myelo,
2:24 pm
i'm president -- i'm concurrent with this form because it's going to create an entitlement rather than a process for exception. we are looking at the impact that these signs will have -- the unmitigated permission for all the signs that are currently out there. we believe that the occasion for this may have come from the traders joe's at california street. and the reason for the chase here, this is an example of how national chains are coming in and have signs way out of control. we at san francisco beautiful are hearing a lot of complaints about chase in particular. the existing statute allows the neighborhood a real back branding that is diminished the character and
2:25 pm
consistency of the neighborhood or the changes in the better street plans that are contemplated for those better neighborhoods. this sign, i don't know why we need to create a blanket permission on the planning department and planning commission would advocate that ability to scrutinize each of these signs. downtown san francisco, city bank has been there for a long time. this sign is very different and very loud from the feeling you have along california street and the financial district. why would we want to give up the ability to scrutinize that in a permitting process. here is another example. what used to be holiday in in chinatown, i took a picture of it at night. it's a beautiful pedestrian
2:26 pm
bridge. it has a lot of detail on it. it's been botched by that hilton sign. again, as the rules are now contemplated would grandfather that sign. in other words we need to opportunity to reel in branding that is at odds with the character of our neighborhoods. i would like to also point out that san francisco beautiful helped pass prop g. we had voter approval but no enforcement on it until we came here and pounded the desk and got enforcement on it and then we got some quantification. only 30 percent are operating legally. what you have in the executive summary is a little breezy and non-quantitative.
2:27 pm
>> your time is up. >> thank you. without any quantitative data we are about ready to see everything as is. good afternoon, commissioners, i'm kristin craven executive director for san francisco beautiful. i think we are in all favor in stream lining procedures and our concern is simply with the process. i don't believe we are in the business of creating code reforms that gut our planning code. this is our fear. we would like for there to be a review process for exceptions to the rule that they should be treated as exceptions in the case of delicate daisy's. that sounds like an important story that you should hear and review but that we shouldn't give
2:28 pm
entitlements to national corporations and other examples that myeloshowed. our concern is really about the process. we don't think you should give your right to review away in favor of expediency. thank you for your time this afternoon and look forward to hearing on how you weigh in on this. >> good afternoon, alex walker. i want to say a few words today on behalf of tom dual vich who is also chair board who could not be here today. i want to draw a few things out from the letter he sent this morning to members of the commission and staff. i want to thank supervisor chu's office for having a meeting with san
2:29 pm
francisco beautiful, unfortunately, amendments were not considered and brought to your attention. amnesty for all signs, but we are still going to work on what is and not considered a change of copy and go through some of the suggested changes that he lined out in his letter. that changes be permit ted for signs that are blocking light and on the visual environment of the community, window signs which

tv
[untitled]
March 14, 2013 2:00pm-2:30pm PDT

TOPIC FREQUENCY San Francisco 7, Alex Walker 2, California 2, Ron Miguel 1, Rob Miguel 1, Anglo California National Bank 1, City 1, Chu 1, Kristin Craven 1, Chinatown 1, Myelo 1, Trisha 1, Hilton 1, Myeloshowed 1
Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color